The Unasked Question

Tying together a series of tweets from Friday, Gallup finds distrust in the traditional or "mainstream" media at an all-time low. Only 43% according to the polling believe the media "report the news fully, accurately, and fairly."

At the same time, Pew informs us of record growth in demographics that many believe had no interest in social media. Nearly half of the 50-64 demo (47%) now frequent social media, and a quarter of the oldest (65+) are on-line. Pew is quick to point out that still pales to the younger cohorts, but considering the 50-64 group represents that younger half of the aging Boomer generation, those are numbers to be ignored at marketer and media peril.

What does it mean? Sea change.

The unasked question for Gallup that Pew infers is this: do you believe social media instead?

How do I make that leap? Based on my own views into the dynamic between the legacy and social media and other surveys that have shown higher percentages for veracity for social graph-based information.

Increasingly, the legacy media is seen as outsider or worse, co-opted insiders. Here's how I explain the Gallup numbers. Tracking backwards, Gallup did not ask the same question regularly over the past decades, but in 1976, faith in the media was at an all-time high of 72%. The next polling was 1997, and the number was down to 53%.

In the 13 years since, that belief figure drops another 10%. Gallup points out in its 2010 survey that believe in all institutions is heading down, so a certain amount of "disenchantment creep" can be in the numbers.

Think for yourself about the last time you were involved in a story that was written or covered by the traditional media. The brick-and-mortar media in particular, who have hard assets at risk and reputations to maintain from the pre-networked era. Was the "whole" story in that account? Were there inaccuracies? Think now about a distant situation, one at which you may know a colleague. Did all the news get into the story? Were key details left out or overlooked? Were certain stories going unreported?

And did you share that lack of veracity with your friends, neighbors or family?

Look, it is hard to separate your personal knowledge of an event -- and its coverage -- from news you read and think, well, what are they not telling me?

Now, what does that have to do with the other two tweets?

For all the faith one might want to invest in the people and their ability to report situations, these other two hoaxes reveal the very real need for that professional filter to remain in place. In the space of a week, social media -- Facebook or Twitter -- led to a series of potentially hurtful stories.

Brooklyn had its first big severe thunderstorm in some time, and an unknown person grabbed a decades-old image of a funnel cloud near the Statue of Liberty and posted it as evidence that the straight-line winds that tore through parts of the city was really a tornado. Media bit, social media bit hard, and a legend was born. Should remind followers here of the Bella Vista tornado hoax.

Soon after, a hoax story spun up that a major earthquake was being predicted on Twitter for California.

So much for unshaking faith in the social side of things, too.

What it means for those of us in a branded media situation -- those that represent institutions and in turn become both media and source -- is that there is the potential for an awesome power. Your social graph wants to believe you, not necessarily the media. At the same time, if you are not learning from the legacy media -- an extreme amount of transparency may be necessary -- you'll find yourself right there on the truthy-ness scale.

As Gallup points out, at least the media is doing better than record low 36% for Congress.